Hi Paul,
Yes and no. We can give an independent verbal account of the social form
that constitutes the commodity as Marx does at the beginning of Capital, and
this does not require an account of the buying and selling of labor power.
Also, I argued that the social form that constituted the product of labor as
a commodity was causally potent. If it is, then the causal potential of
that form will tend to operate wherever that social form actually exists.
But only tend to. Other social forms intersect in social life and the
effects of one can override the tendencies of another -- gravity pulls heavy
bodies to earth, but birds fly. The causal powers that characterize the
commodity form are fully exercised and come to actual fruition only where
substantially all products of labor appear as commodities. This requires
capital. To give an account of how capital constitutes wealth presupposes
the intersection of value and the separation of the worker from the means of
production.
Howard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Zarembka" <zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE-L] on money
> Howard,
>
> In your interpretation 'value' is independent of the buying and selling of
> labor power, independent of the capitalist mode of production, and exists
> in C-M-C, simple commodity exchange?
>
> Paul
>
> *************************************************************************
> Vol.21-Neoliberalism in Crisis, Accumulation, and Rosa Luxemburg's Legacy
> RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, Zarembka/Soederberg, eds, Elsevier Science
> ********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
> On Mon, 24 May 2004, Howard Engelskirchen wrote:
>
> > .... But for Marx,
> > value is not something a commodity has; value constitutes a commodity.
> > If a product of labor doesn't have value, then it is not a commodity.
> > Value constitutes what a commodity is.